Case law

Merritt Logan, Inc. v. Fleming Companies, Inc. (In re Merritt Logan, Inc.)

901 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 1990

In this case, when Merritt Logan established the elements necessary to show negligence, it likewise established the elements necessary to show that Hussmann breached the warranties applicable to the refrigeration system. … Neither they, nor we, have been able clearly to identify its presence or communication to the buyer.

Leonard Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories

874 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 2017

E.P.A., 990 F.2d 1531 , 1537 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Pecuniary injury is clearly a sufficient basis for standing.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). … Further, Plaintiffs clearly articulated this theory in their briefing to the District Court opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

In Re Merritt Logan, Inc., Debtor-In-Possession. Merritt Logan, Inc. D/B/A Rancocas Thriftway v. Fleming Companies, Inc. Fleming Foods of Pennsylvania, Inc. Hussman Refrigeration, Inc. And Engineering & Refrigeration, Inc., Appeal of Engineering and Refrigeration, Inc., at No. 89-1522 in Re Merritt Logan, Inc. Debtor-In-Possession. Merritt Logan, Inc. D/B/A Rancocas Thriftway v. Fleming Companies, Inc. Fleming Foods of Pennsylvania, Inc. Hussman Refrigeration, Inc. And Engineering & Refrigeration, Inc. Appeal of Hussman Refrigeration, Inc., at No. 89-1523 in Re Merritt Logan, Inc. Debtor-In-Possession. Merritt Logan, Inc. D/B/A Rancocas Thriftway v. Fleming Companies, Inc. Fleming Foods of Pennsylvania, Inc. Hussman Refrigeration, Inc. And Engineering & Refrigeration, Inc. Appeal of Merritt Logan, Inc., at No. 89-1524 in Re Merritt Logan, Inc. Debtor-In-Possession. Merritt Logan, Inc. D/B/A Rancocas Thriftway v. Fleming Companies, Inc. Fleming Foods of Pennsylvania, Inc. Hussman Refrigeration, Inc. And Engineering & Refrigeration, Inc. Appeal of Fleming Companies, Inc. And Fleming Foods of Pennsylvania, Inc. At No. 89-1525

901 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 1990

Proof is generally easier in a warranty claim because the plaintiff need not prove fault. 78 In this case, when Merritt Logan established the elements necessary to show negligence, it likewise established the elements necessary … Neither they, nor we, have been able clearly to identify its presence or communication to the buyer.

Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

647 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

Pennsylvania, like every other state, participates in the Medicaid Program, which was established in 1965 under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. … Services may be provided by a qualified family member or relative, independent contractor, or services agency. (A. 62a.)

United States v. Richard Lynn Pitt, in No. 98-7383 United States of America v. William Michael Strube, Also Known as Mike Strube, in No. 98-7497

193 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 1999

The government asserts that the proof established venue. We need not address the issue of venue in this case given the time of the initial objection. United States v. … Section 853(a)(1) provides for the forfeiture of “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of [a qualifying drug offense].” 17 In imposing sentence

MCPc Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

813 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

Galanter’s complaints to Del Balso about the effect of the engineer shortage on the employees’ quality of life clearly related to improving employee work conditions and were not “unlawful, violent, or in breach of contract … Indeed, the ALJ explicitly found that Galanter’s statements lacked “any malicious dimension” and that this was “crucial” in establishing that his particular communications fell under the auspices of the Act.

Greater Phila Chamber Commerce v. City of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 2020

wage history, requir[ing] disclosure of wage history, or condition[ing] employment or consideration for an interview or employment on disclosure of wage history[.]”134 Unlike the Reliance Provision, the Inquiry Provision clearly … Servs., 427 F.3d 466, 468-70 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that prior salary alone can justify wage disparities). 52 previously.”241 Nevertheless, the City did produce such evidence here and clearly

PPL Corp. v. Commissioner

665 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

We agree with the Commissioner that the foreign tax before us does not qualify for a foreign tax credit, and thus reverse. I. Background PPL is a Pennsylvania corporation. … PPL’s expert testimony purports to establish that initial-period profit would satisfy the gross receipts and net income requirements.

Greater Phila Chamber Commerce v. City of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 2020

wage history, requir[ing] disclosure of wage history, or condition[ing] employment or consideration for an interview or employment on disclosure of wage history[.]”134 Unlike the Reliance Provision, the Inquiry Provision clearly … Servs., 427 F.3d 466, 468-70 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that prior salary alone can justify wage disparities). 52 previously.”241 Nevertheless, the City did produce such evidence here and clearly

Kaita v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2008

Withholding of Removal In order to qualify for withholding of removal,7 a petitioner must establish a “clear probability,” that is, that “it is more likely than not” that her life or freedom would be threatened if … She never said she “believed” it was the 25th, as the IJ characterized Kaita’s testimony; rather she clearly stated that when she was out of pain, she was at the hospital on January 25th.

Victoria Vooys v. Maria Bentley

901 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2018

thereafter reversed that decision and reinstated the suit based upon its conclusion that the provision of Virgin Islands law allowing a court to order nonresident plaintiffs to post such a bond violated the Privileges and Immunities … of litigation and allows a court to stay litigation until the bond 3 Although we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the decision of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands in this matter, we clearly

United States v. Dupree

617 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As I will set forth more clearly below, the Supreme Court’s instruction in Hodañ D. compels a reversal of the District Court’s order suppressing the firearm. 1 Therefore, I will dissent from my colleagues. … However, under the exception to the warrant requirement established in Terry v.

Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States Secretary of Department of Homeland Security

456 F.3d 88 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2006

McLaughlin, 164 F.3d 1, 20 (D.C.Cir.1998) (holding that “[b]y using the word ‘thus,’ the Court clearly linked its reference [in the second sentence] to the previous sentence’s discussion”). … [t]he text of the plea agreement ... definitively establishes that the only offense of which Chang was convicted falls about $9,400 shy of qualifying as an aggravated felony. Id. at 1190 .

Francis Van Orman, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of a Class of All Participants, Continuing Former Employees, Pensioners, Beneficiaries and Contingent Survivors, as Such Persons Are Defined in the Revised Retirement Plan of the American Insurance Company, American Automobile Insurance Company and Associated Indemnity Corporation ("Tarp") v. The American Insurance Company, the American Automobile Insurance Company, the Associated Indemnity Corporation, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Company, Tarp, and Fireman's Fund American Retirement Plan("farp"), Robert P. J. Cooney and Jack B. McCowan Nellie Taylor, Andrew Marsh, Ulice M. Hoover, Peggy Laing, Richard Shultis and Waldermar Ogren, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Participants and Beneficiaries Similarly Situated v. The American Insurance Company, the American Automobile Insurance Company, the Associated Indemnity Corporation, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Company, Robert P. J. Cooney, Jack B. McCowan and Tarp, Francis Van Orman, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Participants and Beneficiaries Similarly Situated, and Ulice M. Hoover, Nellie Taylor, Peggy Laing, Andrew Marsh, Richard Shultis, and Waldemar H. Ogren, on Behalf of Those and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, in No. 81-2784. The American Insurance Company, the American Automobile Insurance Company, Theassociated Indemnity Corporation, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company,fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Company, Tarp, and Farp, Robert P. j.cooney and Jack b.mccowan and the American Insurance Company, the American Automobile Insurance Company, the Associated Indemnity Corporation, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Company, Robert P. J. Cooney, Jack B. McCowan and Tarp, in No. 81-2785 the American Insurance Company, American Automobile Insurance Company, Associated Indemnity Corporation, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, the Revised Retirement Plan of the American Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund American Retirement Plan, Robert P. J. Cooney and Jack B. McCowan and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, American Insurance Company, American Automobile Insurance Company, Associated Indemnity Corporation, the Revised Retirement Plan of the American Insurance Company, Associated Indemnity Corporation, Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Company, Robert P. J. Cooney, and Jack B. McCowan in No. 81-2786

680 F.2d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 1, 1982

All statements in the foregoing outline and explanations are qualified by reference to the Plan itself." 4 Both the letter and the booklet summarize employees' rights under TARP. Mr. … Moyer Trust Fund, 441 F.Supp. 1128 (E.D.Pa.1977), aff'd mem., 582 F.2d 1273 (3d Cir. 1978), is clearly misplaced.

Ross, Jeffrey Nead v. Petsock George, Superintendent Scip Attorney General of the State of Pa

868 F.2d 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Therefore, the petitioner clearly has not exhausted his state court remedies. … Whatever the outcome of that determination, establishing a loophole to the mandate for further inquiry sets a troubling precedent both in general and with regard to this case.

Deblasio v. Zoning Board Of Adjustment For The Township Of West Amwell

53 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1995

Pennsylvania clearly provides such remedies, as this case exemplifies, and therefore plaintiffs have no justifiable [procedural] due process claim. 33 Bello, 840 F.2d at 1128 (citations omitted). 34 New Jersey provides a … (finding plaintiff "possesses no property interest that entitles him to substantive due process protection"). 74 The majority falters, however, when it turns to the determination of exactly what property interests will qualify

United States v. Janet Schonewolf

905 F.3d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2018

In reversing the judgment affirming the sentence in Tapia, the Supreme Court determined that the District Court erred in “indicat[ing] that [Defendant] should serve a prison term long enough to qualify for and complete [the … Given that Schonewolf’s sentence was not legally erroneous, she cannot meet her burden of establishing plain error. V.

Simons v. Fisher

55 F. 905 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 1893

Apparently it was introduced to qualify or illustrate the preceeding terms “sole managing officer of the bank.” … In this view of the offer it clearly does not embrace what is necessary to prove the alleged delegation of authority to represent the bank in this transaction.

Vetrotex Certainteed Corporation v. Consolidated Fiber Glass Products Company

75 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

Understandably, Vetrotex agreed at oral argument that none of these findings of fact are clearly erroneous. See North Penn Gas v. … As such, the district court's factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.").

Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Bd.

298 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2002

Pa. 1995) (holding that the plaintiffs could establish a dormant Commerce Clause violation by showing that the Board sets minimum prices according to in-state dealers’ costs); cf. New York v. Brown, 721 F. … The record also supports a finding that the minimum wholesale prices’ burdens on interstate commerce clearly outweigh their local benefits.